Saturday, June 5, 2010

Joseph's Leave

When Shalrie Joseph originally left the Revolution we were told that Joseph had voluntarily asked to take a leave of absence so that he could enter the league's substance abuse program. So naturally many of us were concerned for his well being. I didn't want to speculate about it but I assumed that he had a substance problem that was effecting his life and that he had realized he had to do something about it. Upon Joseph's return we learned that he had actually been suspended for 5 games. We then learned straight from Joseph that the reason for the suspension was that he smoked marijuana. I was quite angry to hear about this. I understand that MLS players aren't allowed to smoke marijuana and that if they are caught they will be suspended. That's fine, I have absolutely no problem with that. However, I do have a problem with the way that the league and the team handled the situation. As a fan when I heard that Joseph had voluntarily asked for a leave of absence to deal with a personal matter I was concerned with his well being and hoped he could overcome his problem. Well there's a pretty big difference between asking for a leave and a 5 game suspension. If we had known from the start that Joseph had been suspended for 5 games because he smoked some pot then we'd know that he was suspended for doing something stupid, not because he had a serious substance abuse problem. The Revolution really dropped the ball on this one.

-Andrew

2 comments:

  1. It's not so much the Revs as it is the league. The current CBA states that the League (and therefore, each club) cannot disclose the nature of off-the-field disciplinary measures. Remember when Joe Franchino "disappeared" for a few weeks before the 2007 season? Same thing. Blame the CBA, not the team.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Revs should have come out and said that he was suspended because he broke an undisclosed rule. Would that have been allowed under the current CBA? I'm not too familiar with all the details. If so, we'd know he was suspended for doing something but we wouldn't know what exactly and they could just state in the same statement that the CBA has a clause not allowing them to elaborate.

    I do remember that and pretty much assumed that it was for substance abuse.

    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete